Scientists do it in the lab—here’s how

In his book Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet …

Author and scientist Fred Grinnell has set himself the ambitious goal of trying to explain the differences between how science presents itself, how science is taught, and the why the interface between science and society can be fraught. His book, Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic, is aimed at seemingly everyone. To quote from the preface, "I wrote this book for a broad audience, including students, scholars, and the public interested in science. Individuals concerned about science education and science policy should find the work especially useful."

Grinnell's success at such a large task is only partial—to be more precise, he got halfway there. The book is divided into two halves, where the first half describes the practice of science and the second half is devoted to the interface between science and society. As a physicist, I found the first half compelling, while much of the second half was so focused on biomedical research that I found it hard to place it in the context of my own experience. This makes me wonder if a non-scientist reader may find both halves equally difficult, but I suspect that the first half of the book is simply much better than the second.

The practice of science

Grinnell does a fine job with the relatively complex process of describing the scientific process, moving from a scientist's idea to general acceptance of that idea in the scientific community. He breaks the process up into the steps that actually occur in real-life laboratories, rather than the idealized model that is taught in high school. He also shows how each step of the process must eventually be crammed back into the idealized model so that it can gain credibility and acceptance within the scientific community.

The idea is that the scientist must translate personal experience into a more generalized model. This generalized model should be such that any competent scientist could have done the work, had they been in the lab. Of course, this isn't exactly true, and Grinnell goes into examples of how this never quite works perfectly, but it does work well enough.

Title

Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic

The highlights for me were the description of the role that inspiration (noticing something unexpected) and perseverance (recognizing that an experiment may not work for many reasons that have nothing to do with the correctness of the idea being tested) play a huge role in discovery. I also found compelling the description of how the difference between signal and noise becomes a matter of intuitive choice when you are right at the boundary between the known and unknown.

The great thing about the first half of the book is that Grinnell makes explicit many of the things that good scientists understand intuitively. But in providing an explicit description, Grinnell does us the service of clarifying our own thoughts, while simultaneously providing insight into the scientific process for a lay audience.

The only thing I wish he had illustrated more specifically is failure. We all have experiments that never worked, and we often don't understand why—and at some point you have to decide that it's time to stop. Or we're reading a journal and find that a competitor has just published an example that proves our work is wrong. What to do then?

By scattering in examples from his own research, Grinnell's passion for his science shines through, but it also introduces the one jarring note in the first half of the book: I would get sucked into the narrative of Grinnell's research, only to have him break off as soon as the point was made to return to more general discussions.

These transitions were sudden and extreme; in one paragraph, Grinnell might give a general description of a process, then jump to his personal experience, then suddenly you're reading something that looks suspiciously like philosophy—not that I have anything against philosophy, but I like to be forewarned.

Science and society

Where the first half of the book shines is in its synthesis between general principles and specific examples, the lack of this linkage in the second half makes for a much more confusing read.

Initially, Grinnell focuses on topics research misconduct and conflict of interest. This chapter illustrates how it is often impossible to completely remove conflict of interest from science, because competitors must review each other's publications and grant applications.

This problem is compounded by the financial system—and here the book becomes almost completely US-centric, much to my displeasure. Most researchers' salaries are partially funded by their grants, providing a direct financial incentive to get positive results. In addition, the US research system is changing from "publish or perish" to "patent and prosper," providing an even greater financial temptation. This is especially true in the biomedical industry, where research has shown that researchers with a financial interest in the outcome of a drug trial are much more likely to report positive results.

Part of the problem with the writing here is that Grinnell's tone is impersonal in this part of the book. I would have loved to have seen examples where the conflict of interest was highlighted explicitly. Instead, where examples are given (Vioxx, the Tuskagee experiment), they are brief and not placed in context.

For example, the Tuskagee experiment was a horrible example of how racism allowed rich white researchers to perform a sadistic experiment on poor, rural African-Americans. It would have been good to see how the researchers justified it to themselves, how local authorities allowed it to proceed, and how, even in the aftermath of the civil rights movement, it managed to continue. Even if, as in the first half, this was provided in snippets relating to subjects such as the ethics of research on human subjects, informed consent, and conflict of interest, it would have made for much more compelling reading.

Faith and science

Before discussing the last chapter, I should give you some personal background. I have spent less than two months in North America over the course of my life. I grew up in a rural and largely non-religious society. To illustrate this, when one of my North American relatives asked me what church I attended (almost the first words out of her mouth when we met), my mother burst out laughing at the expression of shocked bewilderment on my face. So, for me, finding a chapter on religion in a book on science was a bit like being introduced to your uncle Bob and discovering that he is, in fact, a duck-billed platypus.

This was compounded by Grinnell's assertion that science is, in part, faith as well. It turns out he means that we have faith that the world is understandable. (Hey, look, it's the anthropic principle in drag; everyone wave.) It may be an act of faith to believe that the world is understandable but, at the risk of a tautology, it is a testable belief. If our faith in a rule-based universe was misplaced, would science succeed? The process of science itself tests the belief that the universe is governed by rules, and its very success removes the necessity of faith in that idea.

To me, at least, the entire chapter is indecipherable and unnecessary, and this is why I felt that I had to include some personal background. Maybe this chapter resonates more with people who grew up in religious families, and I just don't have the right background to comprehend it.

However, don't let the flavor of the last chapter put you off. The first half of this book is great reading; I am putting it on my shelf at work, and it will become required reading for my new graduate students.

The second half is harder to judge. Science policy people and politicians will probably find it useful, but I suspect that non-scientists will find it hard to take any message away from it. In short, I don't think Grinnell has fully succeeded in his goals for this book, but where he has hit the mark, he has done so impressively.

Recommendation: Buy it, but don't be afraid to give up before the end.

Before discussing the last chapter, I should give you some personal background. I have spent less than two months in North America over the course of my life. I grew up in a rural and largely non-religious society. To illustrate this, when one of my North American relatives asked me what church I attended (almost the first words out of her mouth when we met), my mother burst out laughing at the expression of shocked bewilderment on my face.

In your description of the second half of the book, you say that you had trouble understanding it because it was biomedical centric. Later, you say it was US centric. Is it an issue with jargon, where you had actual trouble understanding the book, or is your experience just so far removed from the profit driven research at drug companies that you can't really empathize? In the first case, I'd probably skip this book. In the second case, I would argue that biomedical research seems to be a indicator of where research in many fields is heading (at least in the US, which is distinctly relevant to those of us living here).

Also, while I always appreciate it when an article isn't obviously a ploy to get people to click on affiliate links, a book review seems like an appropriate place to link to someplace you can buy said book. I had to *shudder* COPY AND PASTE the title of the book. Don't make me work so hard!

Originally posted by Ionitor:In your description of the second half of the book, you say that you had trouble understanding it because it was biomedical centric. Later, you say it was US centric. Is it an issue with jargon, where you had actual trouble understanding the book, or is your experience just so far removed from the profit driven research at drug companies that you can't really empathize? In the first case, I'd probably skip this book. In the second case, I would argue that biomedical research seems to be a indicator of where research in many fields is heading (at least in the US, which is distinctly relevant to those of us living here).

Its not jargon, the financially driven pressures outside the US are considerably different. And, since he was writing a book about it anyway, would it have hurt Grinnell to take a look at those pressures and how they influence the way scientists work? I don't think so.

Consider: a tenured professor in the US might be paid 80% of total salary by the university (e.g., he or she is employed for 10 months of every year). The other 20% comes directly from external funding, which puts a significant direct pressure on the researcher. Now, you can argue that this drives performance--I have no problem with that idea. But, as Grinnell argues, it can lead a researcher towards various ethics violations in response to that pressure.

To take the European example of the tenured professor, the salary is 100% funded, removing direct pressure. Instead, these are replaced with a set of institutionalized and societal pressures that drive performance. These also result in ethical violations, and it would have been nice to see these more subtle drivers explored as well.

As for the biomedical focus. I think that was inevitable, he is after all in the area. But, whereas in the first part of the book I could take his experiences and relate them to my own, in the second part, I found it difficult to find equivalent situations with which to try and make the point clear to myself. This could easily be my own lack of imagination, of course.

quote:

Also, while I always appreciate it when an article isn't obviously a ploy to get people to click on affiliate links, a book review seems like an appropriate place to link to someplace you can buy said book. I had to *shudder* COPY AND PASTE the title of the book. Don't make me work so hard!

LOL, sorry. I didn't put a link in because I assumed Ars had some affiliate deal and the editor would know what to do....

The biggest problem with science and scientists is that their attitude is too similar to that of those who hold religious faith. Many of the scientists I have run into on boards like this one usually lack any real understanding of what they study. Rather, they substitute understanding with memorization of the words and formulae of those who lead their fields. Scientists and priests are too often simply cut from the same cloth.

Originally posted by wordsworm:The biggest problem with science and scientists is that their attitude is too similar to that of those who hold religious faith. Many of the scientists I have run into on boards like this one usually lack any real understanding of what they study. Rather, they substitute understanding with memorization of the words and formulae of those who lead their fields. Scientists and priests are too often simply cut from the same cloth.

Sorry, but second year pre-med students fits that description. Anyone with a Masters or higher degree, and especially academic PhDs, knows their shit and your opinion is very very wrong.

This was compounded by Grinnell's assertion that science is, in part, faith as well. It turns out he means that we have faith that the world is understandable.

I find a touch of Humanism in the authors argument. His faith is two-fold: faith that the universe is rational and that humankind has the capacity to understand this rational universe.

Faith that the universe is rational would be a very real issue for someone with a religious upbringing. What would science do if it encountered an irrational supernatural being or force? Such an event would not be explainable to science or even rationalism. Science as a "way of knowing" would be called into question.

To someone without a religious background, faith in science is a non sequitur.

Good review. I'm glad that you managed to see that your own perspective may be too limited to fully appreciate what may be eye opening to other readers, though as a "non-scientist" (more on that below), I must say that your assumptions about non-scientist readers may be off a bit; both halves of this book sound rather appealing.

As to the US-centricity of the book, that’s fine. That’s how we do, baby, so just let it happen, dig? (Umm..) I know that science is a method practiced worldwide, but Americans really are only interested in how things in America work—and we tend to assume that a book written by a fellow American is geared more toward us, even if it does not explicitly say so. Also, chalk this up to national-centricity of the American reader: most of us would probably struggle to understand the plight of the non-American scientist. As such, the focus is welcome (on my end).

I think that, in order to explain how things work outside of the US, we’d need a book specifically written to do just that.

Still, no knock on your review; it’s just a matter of perspective, and I appreciate yours.

As a “non-scientist,” I spent three years practicing the scientific method in my industry. That is, I took observations of phenomena (inefficiencies); asked what these were, why and how they occurred, and how to prevent them; collected data to help answer these questions, either by harvesting vast amounts of data from databases or observing the process or interviews or a combination of the three (or more); developed a hypothesis (root causes); tested the theory (corrective actions); concluded my results and wrote theories (standardization, sorta). My work was also peer reviewed, per procedure. I am no physicist, biochemist, or geologist, but I was good at my job (so good that I worked my way out of one!), and I produced using this method.

Given all that, I still consider myself a non-scientist.

How this relates, I’m not quite sure, other that to say that I not a scientist, yet I feel I can relate with the book.

Originally posted by wordsworm:The biggest problem with science and scientists is that their attitude is too similar to that of those who hold religious faith. Many of the scientists I have run into on boards like this one usually lack any real understanding of what they study. Rather, they substitute understanding with memorization of the words and formulae of those who lead their fields. Scientists and priests are too often simply cut from the same cloth.

Sorry, but second year pre-med students fits that description. Anyone with a Masters or higher degree, and especially academic PhDs, knows their shit and your opinion is very very wrong.

Dude: folks with PhDs about 120 years ago were adamant that man-made flying machines were an impossibility. It took two bicycle mechanics to prove them wrong.

Let's take the ever popular Darwin model of evolution. Darwin picked the primate as the most logical distant relative that we have. I was hashing an argument with a biologist explaining why it's more likely we're descendant from pigs. Darwin couldn't have come out and said, "Maybe we're descended from apes, or pigs, or horses, or sheep," because he would've sounded unsure of himself and no one would have listened. He had to pick one. It doesn't mean he picked the right one. But, as a scientist, it was too difficult for her to actually consider anything outside of the box that Darwin created.

Then there's those retarded laws that they come out with, like, neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. They use a mathematical model to prove their point and then walk away. I of course have to laugh at it because of the absurdity. It's like that problem of going from point A to point B. To get there, you have to travel half way. Keep doing it and you never get there. That's math. Reality, it turns out, is that you do get there. Hell, you can keep going once you get there, which will really blow the bejesus out of the mathematical model. Back to energy: you can take a current, or a sound, on the one hand, and take its opposite on the other and they'll cancel each other out. Voosh! The energy has disappeared! There's nothing there! Then the scientist will convolute something in order for his law to still be in effect. It's no different than a Christian reinventing the mythology to fit the new fact. aka, Yeah, we said that the earth is flat. Now we're saying it's round. God created a round planet. Duh! If something breaks a scientific law, the scientist will try to reinvent the story without reconsidering the law.

So, back to my original point: scientists and priests are cut from the same cloth and are just as stubborn with their rhetoric as the other. That's why the general public doesn't like to have anything to do with the scientist. At least the priest offers free soup and other services while the scientist locks himself away with others of his kin.

quote:

To someone without a religious background, faith in science is a non sequitur.

I'm an atheist - and I do not have default faith in science. The conclusion of a priest and the conclusion of a scientist are often equally irrational. Perhaps the difference would be that the priest has a social effect while the scientist will have an effect on engineering.

To me, at least, the entire chapter is indecipherable and unnecessary, and this is why I felt that I had to include some personal background. Maybe this chapter resonates more with people who grew up in religious families, and I just don't have the right background to comprehend it.

I've found that (among the people I know) scientists that grew up in deeply religious households are rather sensitive to the dissonance going on between their upbringing and their understanding of how to analyze a situation through the scientific method. If religion isn't important to them, they become athiest or agnostic. If it is important to them, they place this idea up as a defense. They don't want to have to analyze it. It's too scary and painful to open up. It closes too many doors to close-minded friends and family members that are good people that you want to still spend your time with. Just ignore it, and live with the contradiction. Try to philosophize it away. Argue about it on the internet. Just don't analyze - don't think about it. It'll go away...

I'm an atheist - and I do not have default faith in science. The conclusion of a priest and the conclusion of a scientist are often equally irrational. Perhaps the difference would be that the priest has a social effect while the scientist will have an effect on engineering.

I've had some discussions on this topic with religious people (as an atheist myself). I do have a kind of faith in science that I've identified.

My faith is not in the scientists as much as in the scientific process itself. Individuals make mistakes, have egos to defend, have financial interests, etc. But over time, the peer-review process tends to work. And by "work" I mean provide ever greater and deeper insights into how our universe itself works, which can be considered abstractly as Truth.

So I have a kind of faith that the peer-review process, though often fraught with problems, is inexorably leading us to a higher understanding of Truth.

However, I can replace the word "faith" with "expectation" and still be pretty happy. This is definitely not a blind faith by any means.

A friend told me an anecdote recently about his latest submission and review process. One of the reviewers apparently had a personal axe to grind, and it was obvious enough that the editor of the journal commented on it. There tends to be a back-and-forth process at work. You submit a paper, and the journal sends it out to other scientists in your field for review. Then, you receive their comments and have an opportunity to respond. In this case, some of the reviewer's comments had validity, even if his personal bias was highly visible and others may have been uncalled for. In the end my friend said his paper was probably better for it, even if he had to endure some unwarranted abuse.

That's funny... I'm a Canadian, and when we emigrated to the US (Raleigh, NC) about 12 years ago, we received the "which church do you go to?" question frequently and often. My wife and I both thought it was a hilarious (and bizarre!) question!

Last I checked, Canadians are North Americans... and I agree completely with Chris Lee!

Originally posted by oroboros:A friend told me an anecdote recently about his latest submission and review process. One of the reviewers apparently had a personal axe to grind, and it was obvious enough that the editor of the journal commented on it. There tends to be a back-and-forth process at work. You submit a paper, and the journal sends it out to other scientists in your field for review. Then, you receive their comments and have an opportunity to respond. In this case, some of the reviewer's comments had validity, even if his personal bias was highly visible and others may have been uncalled for. In the end my friend said his paper was probably better for it, even if he had to endure some unwarranted abuse.

Well, I have to admit: I subscribe to a considerable number of science-slanted RSS feeds, amongst dozens of others, but no religious feeds. I find big-bang theory to be just as speculative as creation, but it's pretty cool to look at the pictures they take of the known universe. I just wish scientists would be open minded. But, I guess a lot of religious folks are clueless when it comes to their own religions as well.

Originally posted by oroboros:A friend told me an anecdote recently about his latest submission and review process. One of the reviewers apparently had a personal axe to grind, and it was obvious enough that the editor of the journal commented on it. There tends to be a back-and-forth process at work. You submit a paper, and the journal sends it out to other scientists in your field for review. Then, you receive their comments and have an opportunity to respond. In this case, some of the reviewer's comments had validity, even if his personal bias was highly visible and others may have been uncalled for. In the end my friend said his paper was probably better for it, even if he had to endure some unwarranted abuse.

Well, I have to admit: I subscribe to a considerable number of science-slanted RSS feeds, amongst dozens of others, but no religious feeds. I find big-bang theory to be just as speculative as creation, but it's pretty cool to look at the pictures they take of the known universe. I just wish scientists would be open minded. But, I guess a lot of religious folks are clueless when it comes to their own religions as well.

I'd quit while I was ahead somewhere. Not to be mean, but you're asking for the hammer of science to fall on your arguments (and your head) pretty hard.

Originally posted by wordsworm:It's like that problem of going from point A to point B. To get there, you have to travel half way. Keep doing it and you never get there. That's math. Reality, it turns out, is that you do get there.

Wow, some nice trolling there. Really, you still haven't solved that one?

Originally posted by wordsworm:Let's take the ever popular Darwin model of evolution. Darwin picked the primate as the most logical distant relative that we have. I was hashing an argument with a biologist explaining why it's more likely we're descendant from pigs.

Are you saying that you were arguing that we're descended from pigs? What a load of hogwash. What exactly is your evidence for this? Keep in mind that such evidence would have to either explain or discredit the overwhelming piles of genetic and morphological evidence which all points to primates as our closet living relatives. Or you'd have to argue that primates were descended from pigs, or some other such unevidenced nonsense.

quote:

Darwin couldn't have come out and said, "Maybe we're descended from apes, or pigs, or horses, or sheep," because he would've sounded unsure of himself and no one would have listened. He had to pick one. It doesn't mean he picked the right one.

No, but all of evidence turned up in the subsequent century and a half showed that he was essentially right, we are descended from ape-like creatures (technically we ARE ape-like creatures).

quote:

But, as a scientist, it was too difficult for her to actually consider anything outside of the box that Darwin created.

No, more likely it's so difficult for her to mentally dismiss the overwhelming evidence that primates are our closest living relatives, especially given the likely weak or non-existent evidence you put in support of your theory about pigs.

Of course, I haven't a clue what she was really thinking or said as I only have your description of it. And, based on the high quality of your past insights w.r.t. to evolution, and your posts so far in this thread, I'm ever so slightly suspicious of your description.

quote:

Then there's those retarded laws that they come out with, like, neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. They use a mathematical model to prove their point and then walk away.

That's not how it works. At least take some time to learn what you're talking about. Scientific laws are not derived from "mathematical models", they are derived from empirical observations. Moreover, laws are always subject to revision in the presence of new, contradictory data. You know, like science stuff?

It's like that problem of going from point A to point B. To get there, you have to travel half way. Keep doing it and you never get there. That's math.

Really? "Math" says the conclusion of Zeno's "paradox" was correct? I'll have to immediately alert the mathematicians so that they can fix those pesky calculus textbooks. You wouldn't happen to have a rigorous proof of this "math" lying around, would you?

quote:

Back to energy: you can take a current, or a sound, on the one hand, and take its opposite on the other and they'll cancel each other out. Voosh! The energy has disappeared! There's nothing there! Then the scientist will convolute something in order for his law to still be in effect.

Your physics is as weak as your math. What's the "opposite" of a given current? A current going the opposite direction? Those don't cancel out to 0 energy. I think you're confusing current and energy.

quote:

It's no different than a Christian reinventing the mythology to fit the new fact. aka, Yeah, we said that the earth is flat. Now we're saying it's round. God created a round planet.

Actually, it is. In science, the original law was based on empirical observation. If future observation contradict that law, we have to come up with an explanation that can satisfy both the old observations and the new one. Sometimes we can change the old law slightly (see conservation of energy) to incorporate the new understanding.

quote:

If something breaks a scientific law, the scientist will try to reinvent the story without reconsidering the law.

Have an example? If new evidence contradicts a scientific law, then the law has to change. It doesn't have to be thrown away, it was there for a good reason in the first place, but it must be adapted to explain the new phenomena. That's basic science.

Originally posted by wordsworm:Let's take the ever popular Darwin model of evolution. Darwin picked the primate as the most logical distant relative that we have. I was hashing an argument with a biologist explaining why it's more likely we're descendant from pigs. Darwin couldn't have come out and said, "Maybe we're descended from apes, or pigs, or horses, or sheep," because he would've sounded unsure of himself and no one would have listened. He had to pick one. It doesn't mean he picked the right one. But, as a scientist, it was too difficult for her to actually consider anything outside of the box that Darwin created.

Well, if there was any doubt you've got no idea what you're talking about, this should dispel it. Darwin's theory included descent with modifications as one of its core features. A logical consequence of this is that species that share the most features in common (ie - have the fewest modifications) will have shared a common ancestor most recently. Darwin correctly applied this reasoning to human origins, and came up with chimps as the most likely closest relative. All subsequent evidence has confirmed this.

So, basically, you're claiming that rigorously applying scientific logic and coming to a conclusion that has been confirmed by subsequent results is somehow equivalent to acting like a member of an arcane priesthood and somehow constraining the creativity of future scientists. Absurd.

Your claim that "he had to pick one" is complete nonsense, and based on nothing.

Originally posted by RockDaMan:Judging by the book reviewed and the articles that Ars is producing (Idiots guide to Evolution) -- the scientists are not.

I realize from your past history of posts that this is little more than a troll, but could you explain how a review of a book on the practice of science indicates a discomfort on the part of scientists?

Originally posted by RockDaMan:As a Christian, I'm mighty comfortable in the choices I've made.

Judging by the book reviewed and the articles that Ars is producing (Idiots guide to Evolution) -- the scientists are not.

Amusing.

The entire existence of these books and articles is to attempt to explain to the uneducated (or uninformed, if you prefer) why the process is NOT equivalent to religious belief. It has little to do with convincing scientists themselves.

Originally posted by wordsworm:I'm an atheist - and I do not have default faith in science. The conclusion of a priest and the conclusion of a scientist are often equally irrational. Perhaps the difference would be that the priest has a social effect while the scientist will have an effect on engineering.

Here's how to put your money with your mouth is. If someone were very very ill, would you send that person to a modern hospital with an intensive care unit, or to a witchdoctor's hut?. I would never say what we do with biomedical science is absolutely perfect every time, but if you were in my trauma bay needing resuscitation, my science-derived 'priest-like' skills would be much more useful to you than Father Patrick (as much as I respect him) down the street.

As a surgeon-scientist I view everything with healthy skepticism (including my own hypotheses), not blind faith. Inspiration always has to be validated in the lab.

I haven't read this book, but I suspect it would be a useful exercise for you, wordsworm

Originally posted by wordsworm:Dude: folks with PhDs about 120 years ago were adamant that man-made flying machines were an impossibility. It took two bicycle mechanics to prove them wrong.

Various flying machine contraptions have been a hobby of scientists, and in general enlightened individuals, for centuries. I offer you DaVinci, who lived over 500 years ago.

quote:

Let's take the ever popular Darwin model of evolution. Darwin picked the primate as the most logical distant relative that we have. I was hashing an argument with a biologist explaining why it's more likely we're descendant from pigs. Darwin couldn't have come out and said, "Maybe we're descended from apes, or pigs, or horses, or sheep," because he would've sounded unsure of himself and no one would have listened. He had to pick one. It doesn't mean he picked the right one. But, as a scientist, it was too difficult for her to actually consider anything outside of the box that Darwin created.

This point has already been refuted above.

quote:

Then there's those retarded laws that they come out with, like, neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. They use a mathematical model to prove their point and then walk away. I of course have to laugh at it because of the absurdity. It's like that problem of going from point A to point B. To get there, you have to travel half way. Keep doing it and you never get there. That's math. Reality, it turns out, is that you do get there. Hell, you can keep going once you get there, which will really blow the bejesus out of the mathematical model. Back to energy: you can take a current, or a sound, on the one hand, and take its opposite on the other and they'll cancel each other out. Voosh! The energy has disappeared! There's nothing there! Then the scientist will convolute something in order for his law to still be in effect.

Boy did you pick the wrong example there bub.

Particle-Antiparticle annihilation is a mass/mass cancel, and there is a proportional gain in energy during the event that is very predictable. It is very rare for science to have this level of predicting power.

Similarly, light/light interference is extremely well studied. If you honestly think that two waves with inverse functions don't conserve such trivial things like momentum, you're sadly mistaken.

Brush up on the science you attack, b/c your ignorance screams through and makes you look like a babbling idiot.

quote:

It's no different than a Christian reinventing the mythology to fit the new fact. aka, Yeah, we said that the earth is flat. Now we're saying it's round. God created a round planet. Duh! If something breaks a scientific law, the scientist will try to reinvent the story without reconsidering the law.

Scientific theories are limited by raw data and the interpretation of it.If new data shows a much more complex relationship, scientists will modify models to reflect newly found data.

You can't fault science for not knowing everything -- period. Every aspect of scientific research is a work in progress and scientists devote their life to collecting data and refining their models to be more accurate to measured observables.

It's the scientific method.

quote:

So, back to my original point: scientists and priests are cut from the same cloth and are just as stubborn with their rhetoric as the other. That's why the general public doesn't like to have anything to do with the scientist. At least the priest offers free soup and other services while the scientist locks himself away with others of his kin.

This is probably the only part of your crap I'll partially agree with. Scientists can very easily fall in the trap of clinging to certain ideas, but as a whole, the scientific community is very labile and tends to follow where the data leads them.

quote:

I'm an atheist - and I do not have default faith in science. The conclusion of a priest and the conclusion of a scientist are often equally irrational. Perhaps the difference would be that the priest has a social effect while the scientist will have an effect on engineering.

A couple short points:

1) Science is rationale, no you.2) No one should "faith" in science. It should always be questioned.

Originally posted by RockDaMan:Why do scientists obsess so about religion?

Why do you think that scientists obsess about religion? Is this one of those beliefs you hold on blind faith without evidence? Or do you assume that because a small minority of posters often bring religion into science discussions (yourself included) it must mean that all scientists spend a massive amount of time obsessing about religion?

quote:

You've got something that works for you

Not just for "me", science works. Period.

quote:

-- stick with it and leave everyone else alone.

I could ask you the same damn thing every time you troll one of the science threads.

I dislike people using "faith" when describing their approach to science. I prefer to use the term "confidence".

When I was a young student and learning how to create AC electrical circuits I was told that complex numbers was a powerful tool. Complex analysis seemed crazy to me at the time and so I had no confidence that they would work. But the more I used complex numbers in trying to understand AC circuits the greater my confidence rose. Now I see complex analysis as a powerful tool.

My confidence in something is never zero or absolute and it shifts over time as my experience develops. That's why I prefer using something like "level of confidence", it's not so absolute as the word "faith" seems to be.

It's tricky trying to find words to describe these things in a honest and helpful manner.

When someone comes at you with “well, your faith in science is such and such,” ignore them. There is no endpoint to this asinine circular argument. The one making the argument gets to make you out to be a demon worshipper and you get to make them out to be a complete moronic asshat. Nobody really wins.

Originally posted by wordsworm:Back to energy: you can take a current, or a sound, on the one hand, and take its opposite on the other and they'll cancel each other out. Voosh! The energy has disappeared! There's nothing there! Then the scientist will convolute something in order for his law to still be in effect.

Well, if you take a battery which will demonstrably create a current in a loop of wire and then hook up another identical battery in the opposite way (so that the voltages oppose and cancel each other) then you will in fact observe no current -- and hence no energy flux. Is that the example you're trying to make?

Meanwhile, sound waves are propagating; so if you manage to create a canceling (out of phase) wave at a certain point you may in fact observe no sound at all at that location; but there is still energy flux (and you can observe this around the certain point) unless you have managed to cancel the sound completely at the source (i.e., you've managed to produce no sound at all).

Originally posted by MatthiasF:To think anyone can be objective is absurd.

Who claimed perfect objectivity? You're the only one that I can see around here claiming to have absolute knowledge of anything. Well, besides RockDaMan, but that goes without saying.

quote:

To suggest anyone has been able to overcome such things is arrogant.

To suggest anyone here has claimed any such thing is ignorant. No one is claiming that any human is perfectly objective, nor is that necessary for science to work. You should probably spend less time spouting out empty irrelevant nonsense and more time actually reading about just what this little science thing is all about and how it works. Now, if only there were some kind of book to describe the practice of science that was aimed at layman such as yourself...

Hell, send me a mailing address in a PM w/ a promise that you'll read it and I'll personally buy you a copy.

quote:

We're human, stop trying to avoid acting like one.

So we should stop all attempts at objectivity and rationality and instead do what? Throw off our clothes, tear down our cities and go live in a cave? That would seem to be the most "human" thing to do.

Originally posted by wordsworm:Back to energy: you can take a current, or a sound, on the one hand, and take its opposite on the other and they'll cancel each other out. Voosh! The energy has disappeared! There's nothing there! Then the scientist will convolute something in order for his law to still be in effect.

Well, if you take a battery which will demonstrably create a current in a loop of wire and then hook up another identical battery in the opposite way (so that the voltages oppose and cancel each other) then you will in fact observe no current -- and hence no energy flux. Is that the example you're trying to make?

Meanwhile, sound waves are propagating; so if you manage to create a canceling (out of phase) wave at a certain point you may in fact observe no sound at all at that location; but there is still energy flux (and you can observe this around the certain point) unless you have managed to cancel the sound completely at the source (i.e., you've managed to produce no sound at all).

Actually, I was thinking about how challenging it can be to make two generators work together to produce a current because they are able to cancel each other out if the wave patterns are opposite. But what you said also makes my point for me.

In any case... the humble scientist looks to science for all the answers. The humble priest looks to God for all the answers.

And Dr. Jay, you were precisely the person I was thinking of when I wrote what I did. Your arguments often show that you don't understand what people say, and quite frankly I suspect you don't try to. You are the prototypical scientist who has memorized the ideas and formulae without ever having really thought much about them. You can use them and play with them, but not question them or discuss them out of the context of your memorized rhetoric. Real discussions on the philosophical interpretations of the data we've gleaned from our observational devices are absolutely impossible since you have your unquestioning faith.

quote:

Originally posted by Ars of Ares:So an atheist that does not believe in evolution or the big bang, huh? Are we a Buddhist?

So folks have to believe in something? Big Bang and religion start from the same question: Where did it all start? Who or what created us? Religion says that God did it, or that earth was on a giant tortoise's back which came out of the water... etc. Big Bang says that there was an infinitely dense point that exploded and has been expanding ever since. The only thing that Big Bang really has going for it over the religious explanation is that it says that the universe is around 5-10 billion years old, while the religious explanation states existence between 5-10k years old. I didn't start with those questions. I find them to be based on assumptions that I'm not prepared to make. What are those assumptions you may ask? Well, the first one is that the universe was created, that it had a beginning. Static universe theory suggests that the universe has always been here, which is closer to my own line of assumptions. But it also has its fair share of problems.

Even evolution vs creation have some of the same problems. It also asks the question, though on the biological side of things: where did we come from? In evolution, we were created billions of years ago by some unknown event which made the first organism which then morphed slowly over time into the species that run around earth now. Religion says that we were created in the image of God. In both theories, there's a point of creation. Evolution, for me, is fairly logical to a point, but the species we chose as to what we're particularly descended from seems to be a bit of a jump.

In any case, back to my original point: scientists have their own system of faith which makes any meaningful discussion with them impossible.

Chris Lee / Chris writes for Ars Technica's science section. A physicist by day and science writer by night, he specializes in quantum physics and optics. He lives and works in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.